-DAD (HC) Xabandith v. Jacquez, No. 2:2009cv02550 - Document 27 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 24 FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS, in full, signed by Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 3/28/2011. Respondent's 17 Motion to Dismiss is DENIED and he is directed to respond to Habeas Petition w/in 60 days from date of this Order. Petitioner directed to file Reply w/in 30 days after service of Answer. Petitioner's 26 Motion for Extension of Time is DENIED as MOOT. (Marciel, M)

Download PDF
-DAD (HC) Xabandith v. Jacquez Doc. 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PHANHAHA XABANDITH, 11 Petitioner, 12 13 No. CIV S-09-2550 LKK DAD P vs. FRANCISCO JACQUEZ, 14 ORDER Respondent. 15 / 16 Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of 17 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States 18 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On April 12, 2010, respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. On January 20 31, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on 21 the parties which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. On February 22, 2011, Respondent 23 filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 2 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the 3 entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 4 proper analysis. 5 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 31, 2011, are adopted in full; 6 2. The motion to dismiss is denied. Respondent is directed to file a response to 7 petitioner’s habeas petition within 60 days from the date of this order. Petitioner is directed to 8 file a reply within 30 days after service of an answer; and 9 10 3. Petitioner’s March 10, 2011 motion for an extension of time to file a reply to Respondent’s Objections is denied as moot. 11 12 DATED: March 28, 2011. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.